Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 137–152 | Cite as

Representations and strategies for subtraction used by primary school children

  • Gillian M. Boulton-Lewis
  • Lynn A. Wilss
  • Susan J. Mutch
Article
  • 175 Downloads

Abstract

This study investigated the representations and strategies for subtraction used by a sample of 65 students, in Years 4 to 6, in two Brisbane primary schools. Children were presented individually with operations represented symbolically and as word problems. They were asked to solve tasks and explain their procedures. Teachers of the 65 students were interviewed to determine their objectives and strategies. The results of the study show in decreasing order of frequency, use of materials, mental, then written strategies in all Years. Use of recalled facts increased and of calculators decreased over the Years. The results are discussed in terms of information-processing capacity and teaching.

Keywords

Word Problem Processing Load Mental Strategy Concrete Material Subtraction Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baroody, A. (1985). Mastery of basic number combinations: Internalization of relationships or facts?Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baroody, A. (1987).Children’s mathematical thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baroody, A. (1990). How and when should place value concepts and skills be taught?Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(4), 281–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergeron, J. C., & Herscovics, N. (1990). Psychological aspects of learning early arithmetic. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.,)Mathematics and cognition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Boulton-Lewis, G. (1993). Young children’s representations and strategies for subtraction.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 61–75..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, J. S., & Van Lehn, K. (1982). Towards a generative theory of Bugs. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.),Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Carey, S. (1985).Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, T. P. (1982). Conceptual knowledge as a foundation for procedural knowledge. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.),Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, T. P., & Moser J. M. (1982). Development of addition and subtraction problem solving skills. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.),Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Carpenter, T. P., & Moser J. M. (1983). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.),Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes. Orlando: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Carpenter, T. P., Moser, J. M., & Bebout, H. C. (1988). Representation of addition and subtraction word problems.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(4), 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cauley, K. M. (1988). Construction of logical knowledge: Study of borrowing in subtraction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 202–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chi, M. T. H., & Ceci, S. J. (1988). Content knowledge: its role, representation and restructuring in memory development.Advances in Child Development and Behaviour, 20, 91–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1995). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeCorte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (1987). The effect of semantic structure on first graders’ strategies for solving addition and subtraction word problems.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18(5), 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans, D. G. (1990).Comparison of three instructional strategies for teaching and borrowing in subtraction. Ann Arbor, Michigan: U.M.I.Google Scholar
  17. Fuson, K. C. (1988).Children’s counting and concepts of number. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Fuson, K. C. (1990). Issues in place-value and multidigit addition and subtraction learning and teaching.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,21(4), N.C.T.M.Google Scholar
  19. Fuson, K. C., & Briars, D. J. (1990). Using a base-10 blocks learning/teaching approach for first and second grade place-value and multi-digit addition and subtraction.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(3), 180–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuson, K. C., & Kwon, Y. (1992). Korean children’s understanding of multidigit addition and subtraction.Child Development, 63, 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fuson, K. C., & Fuson, A. M. (1992). Instruction supporting children’s counting on for addition and counting up for subtraction.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 72–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy.Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gentner, D., & Toupin, C. (1986). Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy.Cognitive Science, 10, 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Halford, G. S. (1993).Children’s understanding: The development of mental models. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Halford, G. S., & Boulton-Lewis, G. M. (1992). Value and limitations of analogues in teaching mathematics. In A. Demetriou, M. Shayer and A. Efklides (Eds.),Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development: Implications and applications for education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Halford, G. S., & Leitch, E. (1989). Processing load constraints: A structure-mapping approach. In M.A. Luszcz and T. Nettlebeck (Eds.),Psychological development: Perspectives across the lifespan. (pp. 151–159). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  27. Halford, G. S., Maybery, M. T., & Bain J. D. (1986) Capacity limitations in children’s reasoning: A dual task approach.Child Development, 57, 616–627.Google Scholar
  28. Hart, K. (1989). There is no connection. In P. Ernest (Ed.),Mathematics teaching: The state of the art. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lesh, R., Behr, M., & Post, T. (1987). Rational number relations and proportions. In C. Janvier (Ed.),Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 41–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Lesh, R., Landau, M., & Hamilton, E. (1983). Conceptual models and applied mathematical problem-solving research. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.),The acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. National Research Council in America (1989).Everybody counts. A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  32. Queensland Department of Education (1987).Years 1 to 10 Mathematics Sourcebook: Activities for Teaching Mathematics in Year 4. Brisbane: Author.Google Scholar
  33. Queensland Department of Education (1988).Years 1 to 10 Mathematics Sourcebook: Activities for Teaching Mathematics in Year 5. Brisbane: Author.Google Scholar
  34. Queensland Department of Education (1989).Years 1 to 10 Mathematics Sourcebook: Activities for Teaching Mathematics in Year 6. Brisbane: Author.Google Scholar
  35. Resnick, L. B. (1982). Syntax and semantics in learning to subtract. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, T. A. Romberg (Eds.),Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Resnick, L.B., & Omanson, S.F. (1987).Learning to understand arithmetic. InR. Glaser (Ed.),Advances in instructional psychology, Vol. 3. (pp. 41–95). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  37. Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction.Journal for research in Mathematics Education, 20(5), 498–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving.Journal of Educational Psychology: General, 80, 424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson, F. (1991). Two-digit addition and subtraction: What works?Arithmetic Teacher, 38(5), 10–13.Google Scholar
  40. Thompson, P. W. (1992). Notations, conventions, and constraints: Contributions to effective uses of concrete materials in elementary mathematics.Journal For Research in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples.Cognition and Instruction, 7, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gillian M. Boulton-Lewis
    • 1
  • Lynn A. Wilss
    • 1
  • Susan J. Mutch
    • 1
  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyAustralia

Personalised recommendations